UK

Amnesty International calls on the new Government to scrap anti-protest laws

12th July 2024Leave a Commenton Amnesty International calls on the new Government to scrap anti-protest laws

“The right to peacefully protest is a fundamental human right for a free and fair functioning society, not an optional extra.”

Kerry Moscogiuri, Amnesty International UK’s Campaigns and Communications Director

By Amnesty International UK

Amnesty International is calling on the new UK Government to urgently rethink how protest and freedom of expression could be championed and protected across the country.

The call coincides with Amnesty’s new report, “Under-protected and over-restricted: The state of the right to protest in 21 countries in Europe”, published today (9 July). The 208-page report reveals how governments across the region – including the UK – are using an increasingly wide range of means to quash peaceful demonstrations and silence dissent.

The research lays bare a continent-wide pattern of repressive laws, use of unnecessary or excessive force, arbitrary arrests and prosecutions, unwarranted or discriminatory restrictions as well as the increasing use of invasive surveillance technology, resulting in a systematic roll back of the right to protest.   

Amnesty is calling on the new Home Secretary to scrap the public order elements of the recently passed Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act as well as the entirety of the Public Order Act and the Serious Disruption Regulations at the earliest opportunity. In their place the Government should replace them with a framework that safeguards the rights of all sections of the population – this in turn would cement the new Government’s commitment to freedom of expression and the right to protest.

Kerry Moscogiuri, Amnesty International UK’s Campaigns and Communications Director, said:

“The new Government must seize this moment to halt the alarming march towards repression in the UK by repealing the anti-protest laws pushed through by the previous Government and ending the harmful rhetoric being used to stigmatise those who peacefully protest.

“The police should be facilitating peaceful demonstrations, not stopping them before they’ve even begun.

“The UK has a long and proud history of protest: from anti-apartheid protests, to marches for climate action and protests calling out the devastating atrocities in Gaza. Many mass demonstrations have exposed previous governments to be on the wrong side of history.

“In a world where we are grappling with increasing inequality, discrimination, racism, armed conflict and climate change, protest is more essential than ever for people to call out and challenge those in power and seek justice. The right to peacefully protest is a fundamental human right for a free and fair society, not an optional extra.”

Policing protest in the UK

The right to protest in the UK has been eroded in recent years – particularly in England and Wales – despite being protected under international law. In 2022, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act handed police in England and Wales broad powers to shut down protests and expanded criminal offences and punishments for peaceful protest activities.

This was followed by the even more draconian Public Order Act 2023 and the particularly controversial Serious Disruption Regulations 2023, regulations that were recently found by the High Court to be unlawful, but which remain in place while the government pursues an appeal.

Thanks to this authoritarian legislation, police can define almost any demonstration as “seriously disruptive” and impose restrictions on it. Peaceful tactics like locking on, tunnelling and even causing “serious annoyance” have been criminalised. New powers have been created to issue orders banning people from even attending protests.  

There has also been a steep rise in the use of facial recognition technology in the policing of protest. This is despite the UK Court of Appeal concluding in 2020 that the legal framework in place at the time for this technology violated human rights.

Hundreds of protesters have been arrested. Some have received long custodial sentences and many prosecutions remain pending. Following his visit to the UK in January this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders warned that environmental activists face a “severe crackdown” due to the repressive legislative framework and introduction of new criminal charges.

New stop and search powers, including suspicionless stop and search, can be used against people at or on the way to protests. Existing evidence highlights that stop-and-search powers are disproportionately used against Black and other minoritised people, itself a feature of an institutionally racist policing and criminal justice system. The expansion of these powers serves as a gateway for further racialised police encounters.

Anti-protest rhetoric and stigmatisation

Climate change and pro-Palestine protesters in the UK have been heavily stigmatised and their actions used in part as justification for further anti-protest legislation.

High-ranking officials labelled disruption created by environmental protests as “a threat to our way of life” and described activists as “using guerilla tactics”.

Meanwhile pro-Palestine protests have been repeatedly denounced as “hate marches” and “mobs” by leading members of the last Government. In doing this an overwhelmingly peaceful movement calling for a ceasefire in Gaza has been demonised, creating division and exacerbating existing fears amongst minoritised communities in the UK.

In March this year, against a backdrop of large-scale demonstrations protesting against the atrocities being committed in Gaza, the then Prime Minister called for more restrictions on people’s rights to protest peacefully and redoubled his support for the ‘Prevent’ Duty. Amnesty’s research has clearly shown that Prevent violates some of our most fundamental rights – including the right to freedom of expression and assembly -disproportionately targeting Muslims, young people and neurodiverse people.

Existing international human rights standards require governments not to introduce any measures that place disproportionate restrictions on people’s freedom of expression and assembly – it is accepted that protest by its very nature can be disruptive. 

As well as calling for the scrapping of recently passed laws, Amnesty hopes this Government will move away from previously used stigmatising discourse and rhetoric, fuelling harmful stereotypes and portraying peaceful protesters in a way that fuels hostility. This includes characterising protesters as criminals, terrorists, threats to public order and security, or a nuisance to be crushed.  Amnesty also recommends that regular and systematised data collection and reporting on restrictions imposed by authorities, including the police, is undertaken.

Part of a Europe-wide march towards repression

In Amnesty’s Europe-wide report, the legal regulations and related policies currently governing the right to peaceful assembly in 21 European countries – including France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK – were assessed. Amnesty’s report underlines how many authorities across Europe, instead of addressing concerns, removing obstacles and promoting dialogue to find solutions to remedy injustice, abuses and discrimination, often respond to peaceful protest by cracking down on those organising and participating in them.

The report finds widespread use of excessive and/or unnecessary use of force by the police against peaceful protesters, including use of less-lethal weapons. Reported incidents resulted in serious and sometimes permanent injuries including broken bones or teeth (France, Germany, Greece, Italy), the loss of a hand (France), the loss of a testicle (Spain), and dislocated bones, damage to eyes and severe head trauma (Spain). In some countries, the use of force amounted to torture or other ill-treatment and in Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, Serbia, and Switzerland, excessive use of force was used by law enforcement against children. 

---

• The project forms part of Amnesty International’s global campaign Protect the Protest, which aims to defend the right to protest across the world.
• You can follow Amnesty International UK on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter/X.

UK

’40 years on from the miners’ strike, this Durham Miners’ Gala was a special one’

Morgan Jones 14th July, 2024, 

The Durham Miners’ Gala, held on the 2nd Saturday of July and in its 138th year, is a staple of many trade unionists’ diaries – when I ran into Ian Byrne MP early in the day, he described it as one of his favourite places in the world – but this year, marking the 40th anniversary of the 1984-85 miners’ strike, was a particularly special one.

For those not familiar with the proceedings, things kick off early in the morning, as colliery brass bands and union groups parade through the centre of Durham. Among the musicians was Chris McDonald, who is the newly-elected Labour MP for Stockton North, but a long-time brass band member; he plays the cornet.

The procession makes its way up onto Durham racecourse, where stalls and rides – a compelling mix of fairground and political, where you’re able to buy yards of candyfloss and books on communism with equal ease – take up one end of the field, while at the other, a large stage was set up for a rally.

READ MORE: Sign up to our must-read daily briefing email on all things Labour

Before the speakers, the assembled stood while a brass band played Gresford, usually known just as “the miners’ hymn”, in commemoration of all those lost in mining disasters. I thought about my great-great-uncle, who was killed by falling stone at Silksworth colliery in 1934, and likely stood where I had stood and heard the brass bands at the big meeting a century ago. He wouldn’t have heard Gresford; it was written to commemorate a disaster in that same year, 1934.

All of the speakers welcomed the Labour government, and celebrated the defeat of the Tories (perhaps unsurprisingly at an event that is all about celebrating working class identity, the recent defeat of Jacob Rees-Mogg, whose political persona is self-consciously, parodically aristocratic, came in for much gleeful commentary).

The timing – eight days into the new Labour government, and still in as much of a honeymoon period as contemporary politics allows – meant that there was limited room for hits and critiques on the party.

Limited, but not none. UNISON general secretary Christina McAnea, generally seen as an ally to the Starmer leadership, who was speaking at the gala for the first time, took the opportunity to praise Labour’s school breakfast clubs plan, but also called on the party to go further and adopt universal school meals.

This is likely to be a continued pressure point from trade unions (the NEU, headed up by another of the day’s gala speakers, the more left-aligned Daniel Kebede, has also been campaigning for a universal commitment) and other groups. However, despite this (and the policy’s adoption by the Welsh Labour government and Sadiq Khan’s London Labour administration), I think it’s unlikely that the leadership will change position on the matter any time soon.

READ MORE: Durham Miners’ Gala 2024: Live updates as event marks 40 years since strike

Another speaker, freshly re-elected Ian Lavery MP, highlighted one issue where I think the government is more likely to be moved: the two-child benefit cap. “Kids are simply starving,” he told the rain-soaked audience: “And what we must demand is an end to the two-child benefit cap.”

Also on stage, although not speaking, was Jeremy Corbyn; several ripples of “ohhh Jeremy Corbyn” went through the crowd when he was referenced, and Lavery pointed at the Islington North MP, saying: “I’m one of the proudest people in the world to stand shoulder to shoulder with that fella there.”

A theme common to all the speakers was the call for a ceasefire in Gaza; the crowd was peppered with Palestinian flags and pro-Palestine banners.

The speakers left the stage to head up to Durham cathedral, for a banner-blessing service with readings from, among others, Durham City MP Mary Kelly Foy.

Down in the town, the happy festival atmosphere only intensified as attendees (many of whom had been drinking from the get go) reached stages of advanced refreshment, cheering and dancing along to the bands. Come rain or shine (and there was plenty of the former on Saturday), they’ll be back next year to do it all again, for the 139th time.

Launching today, The Miners’ Next Step by Strike Map and Manifesto Press

12th July 2024Leave a Commenton Launching today, The Miners’ Next Step by Strike Map and Manifesto Press

“With a new Labour Government promising a new deal for working people, this pamphlet is an important reminder of where power lies in our society.”

By Henry Fowler and Rob Poole

Last December, on a very wet December Manchester evening, we launched the first of our ‘Industrial Unionism’ pamphlet series, the famous Workers’ Committee by JT Murphy with our partners Manifesto Press. 

This meeting featured an incredible lineup of speakers including Dr. Emma Runswick (BMA), Prof. Ralph Darlington and Strike Map co-founder Rob Poole, as we discussed what the strike wave meant for longer term worker organisation, and what the future looks like into this year, including the impact of the general election. 

Our ‘Industrial Unionism’ series is part of our commitment through our reps, stewards and strike leaders network to provide resources and a space amongst peers to discuss the future of our movement. That is why we are republishing pamphlets and writings that are currently out of print, exploring the ideas behind ‘Industrial Unionism’, and what that looks like in a modern context of multiple unions per sector, and questions of how we organise in a post 2016 legislation landscape.

Despite the growth in industrial action and record levels of public support for unions over the last few years, in 2022 our movement lost 200,000 members, two thirds of them women in the private sector. In figures released recently reporting the year 2023,  we only recruited 89,000 new members, meaning our movement is still in decline. 

Discussing the renewal of our movement is vital and after selling over 1,000 copies of our first pamphlet, we are launching the second pamphlet of the series at the eve of Durham Miners’ Gala rally organised by the Institute of Employment Rights (IER) & Campaign For Trade Union Freedom, The Miners’ Next Step (MNS) by Noah Ablett (The Unofficial Reform Committee).

Historian Rob Turnbull describes the significance of the Miners’ Next Step in his foreword to our re-print “it is a seminal pamphlet in labour and trade union history, ranks alongside the Communist Manifesto in its revolutionary implications can not be underestimated, for its proposals represent a complete rupture with the cosy, consensual Lib- Lab politics, but also the Parliamentary Labour Party whose deference to the state and its institutions was already self-evident”. 

With a new Labour Government promising a new deal for working people, this pamphlet is an important reminder of where power lies in our society, “the power to vote whether there shall or shall not be a strike, or upon an industrial strikes policy to be pursued by their union, will affect far more important issues to the workers life, than the political vote can touch.”

Alongside Rob’s foreword, our pamphlet will aim to bring these ideas to life in a modern context, including forwards from Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, Lesbian and Gays Support the Miners (LGSM), exploring the historical importance of this text and its application today.

We want to thank all the amazing union branches, regions and individuals that have pre-ordered this pamphlet and made it possible to produce this pamphlet. We look forward to discussing the ideas contained in this document and hope you can join the exciting IER X CTUF rally at Elvet Methodist Church, Durham, starting 6pm.

“A Good Deal for Working People? Workers’ Rights After The Election” – Durham Miners Gala, Eve of Gala Rally. July 12th, 6.30PM.

---

• “A Good Deal for Working People? Workers’ Rights After The Election” – The Durham Miners Gala, Eve of Gala Rally takes place on July 12th, 6.30PM at the Elvet Methodist Church, Durham, DH1 3HL.
• You can find out more about Strike Map here, and follow Strike Map UK on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.
• If you support Labour Outlook’s work amplifying the voices of left movements and struggles here and internationally, please consider becoming a supporter on Patreon.

UK

Historians reveal which past Labour government this one resembles

James Moules   

14th July, 2024

A survey has revealed which previous Labour Prime Minister’s government leading historians expect Keir Starmer’s administration to most resemble in the years to come.

A poll of historians conducted by Anglia Ruskin University saw Harold Wilson’s two administrations in the 1960s voted the most likely counterpart for Keir Starmer’s new government. Some 16 of the 34 polled picked the 1964-66 and 1966-70 administrations led by Wilson.

Next placed was the New Labour era of 1997-2010 under Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, which nine of the historians thought would be the closest match for the Starmer administration.

The university says: “By and large, historians believe the 2024 government will resemble the 1960s Wilson governments which had to deal with serious economic shocks (devaluation of the pound) whilst also producing social legislation that has stood the test of time (abortion, equal pay, capital punishment abolition).”

The remaining few votes were divided between the 1924 government – Labour’s first ever administration under Ramsay MacDonald – which got four votes, and one vote each for the 1929, 1945 and 1974 governments.

UK

Palestine – What should the new Labour Government do? It’s arms, stupid!

By Hugh Lanning, Labour & Palestine

JULY 14, 2024

LABOUR HUB EDITORS

The list is endless of the things a Labour Government could and should do. They could start with recognising Britain’s historic responsibility to put right the wrongs that have been done to the Palestinian people since we handed over their heritage and future with the Balfour declaration in 1917. Certainly, a step change in attitude is required, starting to side with the oppressed indigenous people rather than the oppressive coloniser would be a beginning.

But if the liberation and self-determination of Palestine is the objective, words of sympathy and commiseration are nowhere near enough. There are obvious short-term steps than can be taken – the restoration of funding to UNWRA, stopping the Tories obstructive action at the ICC – done at the behest of the US; actively pursuing an immediate and permanent ceasefire; recognising Palestine.

However, these are measures that any progressive Government with morals should do almost automatically. But much more is necessary if Labour is to pass the litmus test on Palestine and start to recoup the trust and credibility lost because of its failure to call for a ceasefire before it was in reality too late. The damage and the killing had already been done by the time Labour got around to it.

The core problem that needs to be tackled is Israel’s impunity – no matter what it does, the world, more specifically the West, lets it get away with actions that would not be tolerated by any other country. Israel knows that the US and its allies have their backs and will not allow anything meaningful to happen. For most countries in the world, Israel is already a pariah state; they see the apartheid regime in action, witness the genocide in progress, look on in shock at the killing fields of Gaza and cannot understand why the world doesn’t act.

A significant and meaningful act by Labour would be to start the process whereby the UK supports there being consequences for Israel’s actions in breach of international law.  To work, the system of international law relies on the fact that there is both a necessity and an obligation on Governments to take meaningful action against a renegade nation failing to comply with its obligations. It is not a pick and mix – choosing which laws you agree with and when you are going to follow them.

In short, there need to be sanctions. In South Africa, there was no real movement towards dismantling the apartheid regime until Governments, including eventually the United States, started imposing sanctions. So, if Labour is going to seek to make a difference, it can take advantage of the UK’s allegedly ‘special relationship’ with the US and start putting some clear water between our policies and stop acting as their glove puppet.

It is arms, stupid! To mimic the well-used slogan of Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, it is arms that are both the Achilles heel and the oppressive strength of Israel. Israel relies on arms supplies and aid from, primarily, the US but also other Western countries including the UK. It is not just supplying arms, it is buying them and cooperating militarily with Israel across the full spectrum of military, intelligence and security issues. This includes providing bases and logistic support.

It is not by its own endeavours that Israel has become one of the most powerful military forces in the world. It is directly the result of the $3.8bn annual aid the US gives it. Between 2018 and 2022, Israel spent more per capita on its military than everywhere in the world apart from the mega-rich Qatar. In 2022, Israel dedicated 4.5 percent of its gross domestic product to the military, the tenth highest percentage in the world. Even before the war on Gaza, Israel was a top military spender. Israel’s economy is a war-based, not a tiger economy; without it, it would be struggling.

The International Court of Justice ruling on there being a plausible case of genocide in Gaza should be sufficient for a credible Labour Government to immediately impose an arms embargo on Israel. The new Government should publish the advice the last Government got, but it needs to be resolved to act. It is not that the UK is a huge supplier of arms to Israel: the significance would be a signal that the new Government will not tolerate Israel’s continuous and blatant disregard for international law. There will be consequences.

We see on the television nightly how Israel uses its weaponry – it bombs, shoots and kills innocent Palestinians in their thousands. It uses food, water and electricity as weapons. A recent Lancet report stated that the indirect deaths being caused by the Israeli military machine are in a ratio of four to one. The 37,000 deaths should be sufficient cause for Labour to act – but the estimate that up to 180,000 or more deaths could be attributable to the actions of the Israeli Government should make the case for sanctions overwhelming.

In the coming months, there is the obvious danger that political groupings in this country and elsewhere will seek to arrogate the issue of Palestine to themselves, rather than allowing the Palestinian voice to be heard on their future. When visiting Palestine in the past, the message was always: don’t be telling us what to do, look to yourselves – what are you doing in your own country?

Rather than lecturing the Palestinians as to our preferred version of the solution, our focus should be on ending the UK’s complicity with Israel’s regime. To start, beginning the process of ending the arms trade while Israel remains in breach of international law – there should be an immediate arms embargo. This would be far more effective than vague promises about recognition at some to-be-determined future date. Israel needs to know that the world is going to act if it doesn’t stop its settlement and colonisation of Palestine.

The election showed the people of this country support peace and the liberation of Palestine. They expect a new Labour Government to do the same. But this won’t happen unless we keep the pressure up both on the streets and within the Party. An early lobby of Parliament is needed to bring the message to all the new MP’s. The unions have a crucial role to play, using the mandates from their members. At this crucial time we need coordination and unity – the issue of arms is both morally and politically the right focus.

Please sign the petition below or follow the link: The new UK Government should impose an embargo on arms sales to Israel. – Action Network.

Upcoming event

Palestine – What should the new UK Government do?

Online, Tuesday. July 16th, 18.30. Register here // FB share here // RT here.

With the Palestinian Ambassador to the UK, H.E Husam Zomlot.
Chaired by Jess Barnard, with further speakers tba – put the event in your diary today!

Hosted by Labour & Palestine. Kindly streamed by Arise – a Festival of Left Ideas. Free event but solidarity donations essential to streaming and hosting costs.

Viral ad imagines the England football team without immigration

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead 

13 July, 2024 
Left Foot Forward

'From the announcement of the starting line up, to our incredible five penalty takers, you can’t deny that migration is a success story for our mostly loved (and sometimes loathed) national sport.'


Ahead of England’s final against Spain, an advert that encourages England football fans to imagine what the team would look like without immigration is being widely circulated online.

The campaign, created for the Migration Museum in London, is designed to challenge anti-immigration sentiments by showing the vital contributions players from migrant backgrounds bring to the England team.

The Migration Museum stages events, campaigns, exhibitions, and learning programmes, focused on how the movement of people to and from the UK has shaped individuals, communities, and the nation.

Highlighting the impact immigration has on the England team, the campaign reveals that 15 of the 26-man team could have played for other countries due to their parents’ or grandparents’ nationalities, or because they were born outside of the UK.

The poster reveals only Jordan Pickford, John Stones, and Phil Foden remain in the squad’s starting 11. Top young talent including Jude Bellingham, Kobbie Mainoo, and Bukayo Saka, along with seasoned players like Harry Kane, could play for other nations. Kane, whose father is from Galway, could have potentially played in an Irish jersey. Similarly, Declan Rice’s grandparents were from Douglas, County Cork, and Kyle Walker is of Jamaican heritage through his father.

Immigration remains a polarising issue in Britain. Matthew Plowright, director of communications and engagement at the Migration Museum emphasised the unifying benefits of immigration.

“Migration is often seen as a divisive issue, but in reality it’s a story that connects us all. As our campaign has shown, almost all of England’s men’s Euros squad have migrant heritage – whether born abroad themselves, or as the children or grandchildren of immigrants.

“And if you peel back the layers of any of the players’ family histories further, you will likely find migration stories. It’s time to put migration at the heart of our national story – and with tens of millions of us watching the Euros this summer, where better to start than with football.”

The creative agency, Wonderhood Studios, designed the poster. Creative directors Jack Croft and Stacey Bird stated that the goal was to encourage England fans to view migration positively by considering its impact on the England team. “From the announcement of the starting line up, to our incredible five penalty takers, you can’t deny that migration is a success story for our mostly loved (and sometimes loathed) national sport,” they said.

The advert sparked extensive discussion online. One comment read: “Immigration is BEAUTIFUL. Without it, the England Team would not exist. As we celebrate their incredible success, we’re reminded how vital diversity and immigration are to teamwork and community.”

Another commented: “I have to laugh when I see some right-wingers wearing an England football shirt.”

“Dear Reform Party, Yaxley Lennon, and hard right Tories… without immigration England wouldn’t be in the final.”

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is a contributing editor to Left Foot Forward

Image credit: Migration Museum X screen grab

UK

Suella Braverman condemned for describing government buildings flying rainbow flags as ‘occupied territory’

Basit Mahmood 

12 July, 2024 

LEFT FOOT FORWARD


'Yet again, Suella Braverman's rhetoric is dangerous & fuels division & hate.'

Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman is facing widespread condemnation and outrage after launching an extraordinary attack on the LGBT community, describing government buildings flying rainbow flags as “occupied territory”.

She made the disgraceful comments during a speech earlier this week at the National Conservatism conference in Washington DC.

Braverman had criticised government buildings flying the Progress version of the rainbow Pride flag.

Designed in 2018, the flag was created to represent people of colour in the LGBTQ+ community, as well as the trans community and those living with HIV/Aids.

Braverman claimed that the flag symbolised support for “the mutilation of children in our hospitals”, something which she said “physically repulsed” her.

Her comments have been condemned from both within and outside the Conservative Party.

Casey Byrne, a former Conservative candidate for Reading Borough Council and LGBTQ+ campaigner, said Braverman should be “expelled” for the comments she made.

Speaking at the National Conservatism Conference, Braverman said: “We Tory ministers, nominally in charge of the system, completely failed. The Progress flag flew over our buildings as if they were occupied territory. I couldn’t even get the flag of a horrible political campaign I disagreed with taken down from the roof of the government department I was supposed to be in charge of.”

Reacting to her comments, former Labour culture secretary Ben Bradshaw said: “Suella Braverman reveals the true face of the Tory right with her bitter fury about LGBT people. We exist. Get over it.”

Labour MP Kate Osborne posted on X: “Yet again, Suella Braverman’s rhetoric is dangerous & fuels division & hate. Her comments are an attack on the LGBTQ+ community & a clear sign that Tory leadership campaign will continue their “war on woke” whilst attacking each other.

“I’ll keep flying my flag with pride.”

Peter Tatchell posted on X: “Home Office flying of Pride flag was ‘monstrous thing’, says Suella Braverman

“This could have been a hate speech by National Front or BNP.

“Any party that allows Braverman to be a member is a threat to LGBTs & human rights.”

Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward

UK

Over 236,000 people sign petition calling for Proportional Representation

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead 

Today

Left Foot Forward

'It feels as if the outdated First Past the Post voting system is creaking and failing voters on a massive scale.'

Hundreds of thousands of people have signed a petition calling for a voting system where every vote counts. Launched by the Electoral Reform Society (ERS), the petition advocates for a fairer voting system in Britain.

The ERS highlights how no party has won a majority of the vote in almost a century. Yet due to the voting system, Britain has a “near-constant single-party governments setting the rules for everyone.”

Under Britain’s first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, the candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins, regardless of whether they have a majority. Consequently, a party can secure a large number of seats without a proportional number of votes. Votes cast for losing candidates are therefore considered “wasted” as they do not contribute to the overall result. This can lead to feelings of disillusionment among voters and lower turnout on polling day, as people feel their votes do not matter.

Under Proportional representation (PR), the distribution of seats corresponds closely with the proportion of total votes cast for each party. Moving to a PR system would give minority parties and independent candidates a better chance of winning seats in parliament. As more people’s preferences are taken into account, under PR fewer votes are ‘wasted.’ This in turn can reduce apathy and lead to greater voter turnout.

At around just 60 percent, the 2024 general election turnout was the lowest in over 20 years. The only lower turnout in recent times was in 2001, when Tony Blair secured a second term with roughly 59 percent of voter participation.

The relationship between the number of seats won by the parties and their vote share has been described as one of the most disproportionate ever. Reform’s four million votes translated into 14 percent of the share of the total votes, but only 1 percent of all the seats in the House of Commons. Labour won 34 percent of total votes, but about 64 percent of the 650 seats. The Greens also had a considerably larger vote share than seat share, with 7 percent of the total vote but, like Reform, about 1 percent of total seats, or four MPs.

The ERS analysed how the outcome of the election would have looked if we had used the same electoral system they use for the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments instead. It found that under the Additional Member System (AMS), a form of proportional representation, where voters choose a constituency candidate and have a second vote for their preferred party to represent them regionally, there would have been a much closer alignment between votes shared and parliamentary seats. Labour would have been the largest party but with fewer seats, while the Tories, Lib Dems, SNP, Green Party, and Reform UK would have gained more seats proportionate to their vote shares. This suggests a fairer representation across Parliament compared to the current FTPT system.

Following the election, Darren Hughes, chief executive of the ERS, has been making the case for PR in TV and radio interviews across the UK. According to Hughes, the public are voting as if we already have PR, as it was the first election ever where four parties received over 10 percent of the vote and five parties received over 5 percent, while the combined Labour and Conservative vote share slumped to its lowest level on 57.4 percent, the second lowest combined vote share for the two parties was in 2010 when they received 65.1 percent.

“It feels as if the outdated First Past the Post voting system is creaking and failing voters on a massive scale. This has only strengthened the argument the ERS has long made: that it’s time to scrap this broken Westminster system and move to a fairer proportional voting system that accurately reflect how the whole country voted,” says Hughes.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is a contributing editor to Left Foot Forward

"Captain, We Hit Smashed Into a Submarine": British and French Nuclear Missiles Subs Collided




July 14, 2024 

In 2009, the UK's HMS Vanguard and France's Le Triomphant, both nuclear-armed submarines, collided deep under the Atlantic Ocean. The collision caused visible damage to the Vanguard, but no radioactivity was released, and no injuries were reported.

by Maya Carlin 

Summary and Key Points: 

In 2009, the UK's HMS Vanguard and France's Le Triomphant, both nuclear-armed submarines, collided deep under the Atlantic Ocean. The collision caused visible damage to the Vanguard, but no radioactivity was released, and no injuries were reported.

-Despite agreements among NATO allies to share the general locations of submarines, ballistic-missile submarines are excluded. This incident highlighted the ongoing risks of submarine collisions, as similar accidents occurred during the Cold War.

-While some analysts suggest increased data sharing to prevent future collisions, others emphasize the importance of maintaining secrecy around nuclear-armed vessels.


While many have heard of submarines crashing to the bottom of the ocean floor or colliding with underwater mountains, it is harder to imagine that sometimes a ship’s greatest danger is simply another ship.

In 2009, two nuclear-armed submarines from France and the United Kingdom collided deep under the Atlantic Ocean. While no radioactivity was released, both ships were damaged when the Royal Navy’s HMS Vanguard struck France’s Trident-class Le Triomphant submarine. No crew members or injuries were reported by either country.

An Overview of the Incident

When the HMS Vanguard returned to its base in Scotland days later, it had visible damage on its starboard side and near its missile compartment. A whistleblower who served in the UK’s nuclear submarine program later claimed that, “The French submarine had took a massive chunk out of the front of HMS Vanguard and grazed down the side of the boat. The High Pressured Air (HPA) bottle groups were hanging off and banging against the pressure hull. They had to return to base port slowly, because if one of HPA bottle groups exploded it would've created a chain reaction and sent the submarine plummeting to the bottom.”

Perhaps the British government was minimizing the damage inflicted on the submarine in an effort to quell public concern over the potential dangers of nuclear leaks.

This freak accident was especially alarming since nuclear reactors power the ships, and both countries’ vessels routinely carry nuclear warheads onboard. Although “waterspace management” agreements among NATO allies direct member-states to advise one another of the general locations of submerged submarines, ballistic-missile-carrying ships are not included in the arrangement.



France’s Le Triomphant submarine could carry sixteen M45 ballistic missiles, and the Vanguard could carry the same number of Trident II missiles. Additionally, each submarine could carry 4 and 6 nuclear warheads, respectively.

The Triomphant-Vanguard incident did not mark the first time two submarines collided. During the Cold War, Western and Soviet ships collided on several occasions, according to The New York Times. In 1992, the American-made Baton Rouge nuclear submarine was struck by a surfacing Russian sub in the Barents Sea. Only one year after this mishap, the Russian K-407 collided with the USS Grayling. Decades earlier, in the mid-1970s, the U.S. Navy’s USS James Madison collided with a Soviet Victor-class attack submarine roughly 30 miles off the coast of Glasgow, near Holy Loch.



While some analysts argue that allies should share more data to mitigate the risks of future collisions, others argue that maintaining secrecy around nuclear-armed submarines is of the utmost importance. As Lee Willet of the Royal United Services Institute in London once put it, these vessels are the “strategic crown jewels” of any nation, and relaying such sensitive intelligence even to allies would be risky.
About the Maya Carlin

Maya Carlin, National Security Writer with The National Interest, is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin

All images are Creative Commons.